Following on from yesterday’s post about marriage, I thought it would be useful to post something about the Church’s role in the public square. Lo and behold! Catholic Lane has published an article by Bishop Loverde on this very topic. He says, in part:
…the Church does have a place in the public square, but Her place is unique. Her role is to inform public debate about the universal truths and principles of a just society rather than to make specific policies or to promote candidates for office. The Church serves as a conscience for civil society. The principles that the Church defends in public life are not strictly religious principles knowable only through supernatural revelation, but are derived from the natural law, which can be known by right reason. These natural law principles can be discussed by all people of good will who are open to rational discourse and truth. Thus, the Church reminds voters and those in public life of the law written in their hearts and of that law’s necessary role in maintaining an equitable and harmonious society.
Often, the way that the Church contributes to political debates is by drawing upon basic principles about human dignity and the common good. For example, in the debate over undocumented immigration in the United States, the Church reminds all involved to balance the rights of national sovereignty and legal borders with respect for the dignity of each person and family. She does not propose specific political solutions to the problem, but calls for those deliberating these policies to be guided by humane principles as they strive to do what is best.
While most issues debated in the public square are matters of prudential judgment, there are others that touch on intrinsic evil and thus require the Church in Her prophetic mission to take an absolute stand against them. In our age, these issues especially concern the respect for human life and the definition of marriage and family. It is always, and at all times, evil to willfully take an innocent human life, or to willfully assist someone in those acts. Therefore, witnessing to the truth, the Church must call for an end to all forms of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
Another clear-cut truth is that marriage between a man and a woman is not a societal construct, but a reality that exists because of the nature inherent in each human person. Human beings did not invent or define marriage; therefore we should accept and live out the reality that truly exists. Life and marriage do not attain their meaning and dignity from government or even from a democratic vote, because they are more elemental than these institutions. Life, marriage and family exist first and then governments of various kinds gain their being from them. Governments are instituted to aid and protect life and the family — not to decide what they are. The Church resists all attempts to redefine these fundamental human realities and invites all to enter into a rational dialogue about the full meaning of these God-given realities.
In my view, my proposal that the Church steps out of being a State-sanctioned marriage celebrant strengthens our power to be part of the public debate on the nature of marriage.
We have three very clear separate categories: marriages that are sacramental; marriages that comply with the natural law even though they are not sacramental; and marriages that breach natural law in one way or another (such as open marriages where fidelity is not promised, or sequential marriages where those involved promise to be married as long as their love lasts). Let’s make our position much clearer by celebrating only the first, blessing the second, and explaining why we reject the third.
This might seem a stupid question, but I thought Catholic priests only did perform sacramental Catholic marriages. Yes, I know that priests are civil celebrants as well, this way a couple marrying in a Catholic Church doesn’t have to be married at a registry office as well. But I was under the impression that priests didn’t marry any couple coming their way, but only Catholic, or couples where one is a Catholic.
Actually, none of what I said was an actual question, but a statement of what I thought. The question was only implied. So here’s the actual question, do Catholic priests perform non-sacramental marriages?
Muerk, it’s a good question. So I looked it up. Apparently, a priest can witness a marriage between a Catholic and a baptised Christian, and it is a valid sacramental marriage. However, a priest can also witness a marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptised person. In this case, the marriage is not a sacramental marriage, but only a natural marriage. Special dispensation is required from the bishop for a priest to perform a non-sacramental marriage. Here’s what the USCCB’s website says:
“3. What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic marriage?
Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.
4. If a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic, how can they assure that the marriage is recognized by the Church?
In addition to meeting the criteria for a valid Catholic marriage (see question #3), the Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic. If the person is a non-Catholic Christian, this permission is called a “permission to enter into a mixed marriage.” If the person is a non-Christian, the permission is called a “dispensation from disparity of cult.” Those helping to prepare the couple for marriage can assist with the permission process.”
Are you saying that priests should stop marrying people where one is not a baptised Christian, or are you saying that priests should stop being civilly recognised celebrants and if Catholic wish to have their sacramental marriage accepted by the State they need to be civilly married as well?
I’m saying that priests should stop being civilly recognised celebrants, and if Catholics wish to have their marriage recognised – sacramental or non-sacramental depending on who they are marrying – they need to be civilly married as well.
Also, as an aside and I know it’s off topic but… it’s awesome to have the comments on this blog rocking. This is a consistently excellent read and it’s good to see the blog build a commenting community as well.
Good job!
Thanks, Muerk.
I don’t agree that the Church should get out of witnessing and celebrating non-sacramental marriages. The Church has been celebrating such marriages for a very very long time, before the state got involved.
I regard the idea the all marriages must be state civil marriages as a huge, unwarranted, and unjust concession to the secular state. it seems to be an idea born in the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution and quite foreign to our English and Spanish (and I expect Italian) tradition which has always accepted the right of the Church to conduct marriages.
Perhaps what we really want to get out of is not natural law non-sacramental marriages, but civil unions and the like between partners who do not meet the natural law requirements of marriage ?
God Bless
It would seem not, Chris. The Church in Europe from about the middle ages took on the responsibility of keeping records of who was married to whom, but it didn’t actually require marriages to be solemnised in front of a priest. It wasn’t until after the Protestant reformation that the Council of Trent (in 1563 – 444 years ago) required a priest to witness a marriage for it to be a licit Catholic marriage.
Apparently the Protestant part of Europe had, meanwhile, put the responsibility for recording marriages to the State. So, by the 17th Century, just a few years after Trent, Catholics in most of Europe had to have a civil ceremony before their religious ceremony.
In England, between the Marriage Act of 1753 and the second half of the 19th Century, Catholics needed to have an Anglican ceremony in order for their marriage to be legal. (Prior to 1753, while an Anglican ceremony was required, a ‘common law’ marriage was recognised without one. The 1753 Act recognised Jewish and Quaker marriages, but not Catholic marriages.)
So the role of Catholic priests as registered marriage celebrants for the State has a relatively short and patchy history, all told.
I think on balance I agree with Chris. I can though see the appeal of distancing the Church from the State given the State accepts unions that aren’t natural law marriages.
I also want to say that before we started discussing things I didn’t think my marriage was a sacramental one because we weren’t actually married in the Church. I’m so glad I was wrong and really, looking back I know I’m wrong. Since we were baptised and entered the Church our marriage has improved dramatically. I can see God’s grace working in our marriage and it has really made a difference to us as a couple.
I think that one of the best ways we have of influencing the culture is the simple good example of married couples in parishes.
I do think that we need to get real about the magnitude of the threats to marriage. In the scale of real actual threats to real actual marriages, Gay Marriage is pretty much down at the bottom of the list. Far bigger threats are low wages, long working hours, the cost of food and housing, drugs, alcohol, family violence and pornography.
IMHO we’d do far better to put our money and resources in supporting and sustaining Catholic marriages through effective ministries such as Marriage Encounter than in expensive and ineffective “King Canute” campaigns to try and prevent the inevitability of Gay Marriage.
God Bless
I think there are different qualities of threat. The threats you list are direct threats to individual couples, and I agree they are important to deal with. However there are also wider threats to natural law marriage, like same sex relationships. Although it is my belief that we only got to the stage of gay marriage as a social concept because we had already lost the natural law definition of marriage. I think it’s a symptom of a change of definition.
So yes, we need to focus on direct threats to couples, but I think we should promote natural law marriage as well. I think divorce and contraception are more of an issue there than gay relationships.
Yes, I agree. and sequential or simultaneous plural marriage is, perhaps, the greatest threat of all.
JP, is your argument that church marriages should be recognised by the state first, before they can be celebrated in the church? I think this fails to reach your goal. In order to effectively create any sort of distinction, they need to be two completely unrelated processes. Catholics should be able to get married in the church, and skip getting married by the state if it treats non-marriages the same as marriages. Naturally any Catholic should be allowed to get married by the state if they want to get that status, but if a state marriage is a prerequisite, Catholic marriages will just be a “special” state marriage, not a different sort of thing based on different principles. It will just be a more complex version of what happens already, with no way for anyone to actually see the distinction.
I see your point, Alexander, and agree with you in principle. However, it would mean setting up a whole separate central registration system, I think. At the moment, we rely on people’s honesty to ensure that they don’t get married in the church to two different people in two different diocese, and rely on the state registration system to catch those who try it.
Is that a problem, do you think? Do we set up our own parallel system? Or do we assume that those who care about being married in the Church will care enough to be honest?
A national database for Catholic parishes to record marriages is trivial today. Heck you could just buy something cheap and cheerful off the shelf, you wouldn’t even need to code it. It wouldn’t even need to be in every parish, just the dioceses. When a couple comes for a marriage a parish secretary could just request a name/d.o.b. look up from the diocesan office.
Piece of cake.
Hm. I hadn’t considered that at all. I just assumed that anyone who would want to get married in the church would not want to get married more than once, but I suppose I could be wrong. Is the state’s registration system publicly-searchable, and does it record if a person is divorced? Otherwise multiple marriages can be attempted anyway.
At the end of the day, the bigamist would be responsible before God for this kind of thing. The Church can’t act recklessly, but there’s due diligence and then there’s due diligence. A person determined enough to attempt two church marriages will always find some way.
Yes, the government system is publicly searchable in NZ, Australia, the UK, and the US (and presumably other places, but those are the ones I checked). I don’t know if they record divorces against marriages, but a record that someone has been married would certainly alert someone to the need to see proof of death or divorce of the former spouse.
But yes, I think you’re right about the extent of due diligence. We can get so hung up on making sure someone can’t cheat, that we can cut non-cheaters out of the picture altogether.
I wonder what the State response would be to the Catholic Church saying ‘we’re not going to be part of your system any more’. At least here in New Zealand, where children and live-in partners are protected by law with or without the marriage certificate, I can’t see any extra social benefit that comes from having a civil marriage as well as a religious one.
” At least here in New Zealand, where children and live-in partners are protected by law with or without the marriage certificate, I can’t see any extra social benefit that comes from having a civil marriage as well as a religious one.”
I agree. In fact if this was the system I would be more than happy to just have my sacramental marriage because that is the one with actual significance to me.
Yes, likewise. Although I have thought of one benefit; I got to change my name without having to go through deed poll and other fuss. Some people might not see that as a benefit, though.
“I don’t know if they record divorces against marriages,…”
The UK does.
True… I’m not sure how you would get around the name change thing.
“I do think that we need to get real about the magnitude of the threats to marriage. In the scale of real actual threats to real actual marriages, Gay Marriage is pretty much down at the bottom of the list. Far bigger threats are low wages, long working hours, the cost of food and housing, drugs, alcohol, family violence and pornography.”
“Amen” to all that ! If only the bishops could see that – instead, they do serious harm to (what’s left of) their credibility, by saying things like:
“Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history. Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society.”
(Statement of Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio regarding passage of same-sex marriage legislation, paragraph 1 – http://netny.net/currents/blogs/writing-the-wave/breaking-brooklyns-bishop-dimarzio-on-same-sex-marriage-bill-passage/)
One wonders whether he would have talked of “powerful political elites”, if the bill had been to legalise something he approved of. Maybe there was bi-partisan support because members of both parties believed the measure was both just and morally appropriate. It’s very difficult to see what harm even the most fanatical gay activists could do to marriage, that has not already been done by straight married couples. There is a scathing attack on the “gay peril” argument by Michael Parenti here: http://www.skeptic.ca/Parenti_Heterosexual_Marriage.htm
When England – I don’t know about Scotland, which has its own legal system – made divorce possible in 1857 without requiring a separate Act of Parliament, as had hitherto been the case, society didn’t collapse. It did not collapse when the legal disabilities on Catholics were lifted in 1778 & 1829, nor when it became possible for Catholics to be elected to Parliament (in 1829), Jews (1858), and atheists (1886). It did not collapse when the US outlawed slavery, nor when it ended segregation. But every time these measures have been intended or canvassed, ther have been those who have said that society would collapse – & they have usually warned that God would send a judgement of some sort. Crying “Wolf !” is neither convincing nor wise.
The anti-gay (marriage) alarm reminds me of the revulsion and perturbation expressed when it was suggested that Catholics, whom every God-fearing, Bible reading, Protestant “knew” perfectly well were anti-Christian perverts & fifth-columnists in thrall to a foreign prince, should have (the great majority of) their legal disabilities removed – in 1780 there were violent riots, and in 1829 there was a lot of worry about the consequences of the intended Emancipation Act. It’s not clear that Bishop di Marzio, and other Christians worried about the recognition in law of gay marriage, have a better case than the opponents of these earlier measures.
Joyful,
You just read my mind. I have been thinking about the same prospect of the church opting out of state-marriage. The definition of civil marriage in the Anglo-American tradition was that of conjugal union, where coitus was seen as the consummation of a marriage, regardless of whether conception took place or not.
The advent of pre-martial sex, has drastically changed the meaning of this definition. Marriage is no longer necessary to consummate a union.
Civil marriage has been reduced to a piece of paper, and needs to be separated from sacramental/natural law marriage.
Thanks, Srdc
Kerberos,
So you’re saying the 60% divorce rates, single parenthood, pre-marital sex, etc, have had not impact on society and family. You do seriously think we have come to this stage without the other being possible?
We do have a better case. Anglo-American legal tradition defined civil marriage as conjugal union, where, coitus was seen as the consummation of a marriage, regardless of whether conception took place. The reasoning was the for union to take place on any level, there has to be co-ordination on that same level.
People no longer wait to have sex to get married, hence the definition does not apply, in fact why get married at all?
For instance, if two people commit to play tennis for the rest of their lives, only with each other, until they die, are they married?
What makes a marriage, what is a marriage? What makes marriage different from other arrangements such as co-habitation, or seeing other people?
.
Toad will offer a working definition of mariage:
A union between two people entered into when, and only when, it will result in an advantageous tax break.
Why two people? I don’t get that. I can understand a limitation of marriage to a man and a woman*; but to two people? I am afraid it leaves me flabbergasted. If you are opening marriage up to two guys, why not two guys and a girl? There’s plenty of people who have polyamorous relationships; why not let them be polygamous?
Of course, your definition might be facetious. I don’t know NZ tax law to save my life, but in Australia people can get the same tax break without being married, and I think the word “union” is even a significant exaggeration.
Do you think the idea that the state should just get out of the “marriage business” completely and absolutely, without any form of recognition, is a good idea? (It is my preference.) Or do you actually hold to the “two person” definition, and (for preference) help me understand why?
* Presently I happen to agree with it; but I have not always. When I didn’t, I still understood it.
.
Perfectly correct Alexander – make that at least two people.
(Though three is notoriously a crowd.)
.
.
..in fact why get married at all?
Asks SRDC. Well, you have convinced Toad on that one!
…if two people commit to play tennis for the rest of their lives, only with each other, until they die…
…then they only have themselves to blame.
Forty-love!
.
Toad,
Very True, there would be no fights for gay marriage if it was not for the legal benefits. Those who want to get married, would do it quietly, there wouldn’t be an organized movement.
I can’t see any extra social benefit that comes from having a civil marriage as well as a religious one.
If that were true, then there would be no Common Good argument against Gay Marriage because there would be no social benefit in it 🙂
The reality is that marriages recognized by the state DO confer a range of social benefits : tax arrangements, next of kin recognition, the ability to adopt etc.
Catholic social teaching requires the state to recognize, uphold, protect, and privilege marriage because of its necessity to the Common Good.
All this talk of the state getting out of marriage is just undermining the Common Good.
God Bless
I can see how legally recognised relationships benefit the couples involved – as you say, tax benefits, next of kin recognition, adoption. But how do these contribute to the common good? One could reasonably argue that preferencing one or two types of relationship over others is contrary to the common good, since it gives people incentives to choose those types of relationship and thereby distorts the playing field.
I believe – and will argue in my next post – that there is evidence that natural law marriage contributes to the current good. But the relationships currently sanctioned by our State and many others around the world don’t fit the natural law pattern. So why is the State recognising, upholding, protecting, and privileging them?
JP,
In current NZ Law, civil marriage IS natural law marriage so when we privilege it, we ARE privileging natural law marriage
Yes, we do want to give people incentives to choose the good and avoid the bad – that’s the hallmark of a good society – one which makes it easier to choose the good.
God Bless
But Chris, that is precisely my point. Our current legislation does not privilege marriage over civil unions, barely privileges marriage and civil unions over de facto relationships – and does not privilege marriage at all in the area of primary social good (the procreation and education of children).
If you think current legislation gives people incentives to choose the good and avoid the bad, tell me what they are?
Further, since natural law marriages are for a life time, a fair number of those who marry in civil marriages, promising to be together ‘as long as we both shall love’. are not promising a lifetime. Anyone with a prenuptial agreement, for a start! And anyone entering marriage with a natural law spouse and a civil divorce in their past.
So, no, civil marriage and natural law marriage are not the same thing.
JP,
I agree that society could and should do more to privilege marriage. Current NZ marriage law does allow married couples to adopt but does not allow civil union partners to adopt, so that’s at least one small example of a positive difference in secular marriage law.
since natural law marriages are for a life time
St Paul would disagree. Right from the get-go the Church has insisted on it’s right to set aside natural law marriages in favor of the remarriage of the spouse who becomes a Christian in cases where “as long as we both shall love” has broken down (the Pauline privilege).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_privilege
The Popes have also reserved the right to dissolve even marriages between a baptised Christian and a non-Christian (the Petrine privilege).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrine_Privilege
The Church herself recognizes her power to set aside natural law marriage.
God Bless
Something of a stretch Chris. For your assertion to be true, you would have to first prove that Roman civil marriages were natural law marriages. In Rome, fidelity was not notably a feature, and divorce was as simple as packing up and moving out.
Indeed, it could be argued that both the Pauline and the Petrine privilege recognise how unlikely it is that a marriage between two people with such different views of fidelity, openness to children, and life-long commitment would be a natural law marriage.
The rubber of the simplistic notion that marriages cannot be dissolved meets the road of “whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” 🙂
The Church presumes a marriage is valid unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary. And the evidence needs to be about the particular marriage in question, not social norms of the day. So we’d assume all those Roman marriages were valid marriages.
Which is just as well in case of the marriages of Abraham, David, and Solomon !
The Pauline privilege also applied to Jewish marriage, which was a pretty much a model of natural law marriage in the ancient law, but still dissoluble by Paul.
God Bless
Marriage, by its nature, is permanent. If it is not intended to be permanent, it is not a natural law marriage. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Indeed, the very rarity and difficulty of disolution using the Pauline and Petrine privilege underscores the Church’s commitment to the permanence of marriage. Under the Pauline privilege, the Church permits remarriage of a person who has been baptised since their marriage when their unbaptised partner has left the relationship because of the baptised person’s change in faith. Under the Petrine privilege, which is very rarely used, a Catholic that was married to a non-Christian can be remarried in the Church under certain case-specific circumstances. In both cases, the non-Christian marriage has already ended.
Marriage, by its nature, is permanent.
Not quite.
Marriage is “until death or dissolution or annulment do us part”.
Permanent is, well, permanent.
God Bless
Not my words; it is the Catechism that calls marriage permanent.
You may be going over the top in inferring that something which can be dissolved by death or (very rarely) by Church edict is not ‘permanent’. Here are some common, and perfectly valid, uses of the word ‘permanent’: I’ve done my share of temp work, but I now have a permanent job; I have given my hair a permanent wave; the UN’s permanent headquarters are in Washington. These all describe a state that is intended to be long-lasting, but not eternal.
Which reminds me of the occasion when a soon-to-be ex-son-in-law complained about the cost of divorce. My beloved reminded him that widowhood would be cheaper.
Chris,
In a ideal situation yes, Catholic social teaching requires you to uphold marriage and make laws to protect the common good in all areas of life. You, cannot do this when the state will no longer listen to what you have to say. You can’t render unto Cesar, when Cesar is mad.
In such a case, not upholding civil marriage or laws that are immoral, would be the serving the common good.
Why not start a new marriage movement instead? People interested can join in.
The Princeton University’s Anscombe Society, and Harvard University’s True Love Revolution are among them.
.
“You can’t render unto Cesar, when Cesar is mad.” declares srdc.
Well,
Toad can’t remember Christ making that subtle qualification. And in fact, one or two Caesars were mad, and people, no doubt, rendered to them anyway.
Or else.
And who’s to say who’s mad?
Pascal, no dummy, said:
“Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would merely amount to another
form of madness.”
“Marriage is “until death or dissolution or annulment do us part”.”
A Catholic annulment says that there was no marriage to begin with, so technically it can not end a marriage.
.
Annulment.
Another can of worms that has consistently shown the Church in a bad light:
The rich buying themselves out when the poor have to suck it up. (At least, that is the general perception.)
Yes, can’t argue with you there, Toad. It’s fair enough when there clearly never was a marriage, but the process has certainly been corrupted in some places, at some times, and for some people.
.
My God – Joyful just agreed with Toad. Very disturbing. Apocalypse clearly headed this way.
Any human process can be corrupted, but even in such tragic cases as Sheila Rauch Kennedy described in “Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage”, the Roman Rota eventually got it right and overturned the annulment of her marriage.
By and large, the annulment process is sound, and very liberating for many people involved.
Because of the costs involved (recently doubled in Aotearoa NZ), the process has always smacked of special privileges for the rich, especially in the distant past where it was often pretty much the exclusive reserve of the aristocracy.
But such costs seems inevitable in any serious legal process where the claims need to be properly considered. Possible solutions might include taxing everyone else (or every marriage) to subsidize anullments or the Church appointing unpaid volunteer investigator to expedite claims for free.
God Bless